Paul: Did you hear that Andera went back to Chicago? She was supposed to stay through the reunion. She just up and left. What did you say to her in that ice shack, Will?

Willie Conway: I told you, we just talked.

Paul: You told her things, didn't you?

Willie Conway: What things?

Paul: You let her behind the curtain, didn't you?

Willie Conway: Maybe she missed her boyfriend.

Paul: You let her behind the curtain, I know you did. You never let them behind the curtain Will. You never let them see the little old man behind the curtain working the levers of the great and powerful OZ. They are all sisters Willie... they aren't allowed back there... they mustn't see.

Willie Conway: Tell me the truth. You stay up nights thinking about this shit?

peeker643 wrote: Count me as a Hiko/Bow blend in terms of this move and the RGIII need and a Lead Pipe/Matt/Swerb blend on the org (with just enough of a Bow/Hiko hedge to hold out hope). Plus I mentioned some big hitters in a positive light and maybe we're now board allies!!!!!!!!!!! See, I don't ignore the good and 'clever' things you do. It's you that can't read me any more, amigo.

peeker643 wrote: Count me as a Hiko/Bow blend in terms of this move and the RGIII need and a Lead Pipe/Matt/Swerb blend on the org (with just enough of a Bow/Hiko hedge to hold out hope). Plus I mentioned some big hitters in a positive light and maybe we're now board allies!!!!!!!!!!! See, I don't ignore the good and 'clever' things you do. It's you that can't read me any more, amigo.

Salud!!!!!

I am the classic bridge builder, Matt.

Indeed.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:And BTW, NFL people tend to surround themselves with people who will make them successful, not necessarily another Delta Tau Chi brother.

So your assertion is that Holmgren is purposely selecting people that are not what he feels are the best candidates for the job in order to grease his agent's palms and surround himself with yes-men?

Is there any exploding paint involved?

No and no.

Next question.

ETA - What part of "as you suggest, there is probably nothing wrong with that" is unclear?

I was responding to your insinuation that Holmgren was more concerned with some brotherhood than surrounding himself with people that would make him successful, since they obviously don't have to mutually exclusive.

mattvan1 wrote:All I did was point out that LaMonte representation seemed to be part of the Walrus hiring criteria and that it made me go hmmmmmmmmmm. You and Bow/Hoo Doo are convinced it doesn't matter and/or don't give a fuck. I think it's at the very least worth mentioning and also a bit troublesome. The angst surrounding the discussion is confusing - I guess we each feel the other is suffering from some type of brain dysfunction for not seeing things the "right" way.

I wasn't trying to convey angst at first - I don't really care about the agent angle and was just expressing that concept. Then it was expressed (not by you) that I was foolish for ignoring the concept, which, in my opinion, is akin to someone chastising me for "not putting enough stock into the fact that they all shop at Target and couldn't this be some kind of insidious corporate takeover attempt by the French?" I let that push my buttons.

As I said, if I didn't think Holmgren was hiring guys that made perfect sense for him to hire in the context of what HE'S looking for (not what WE want him to look for), then maybe I'd lend some credence to other factors. But if a guy goes out and hires his friend who he's known for a long time and whom he trusts and who knows his way of business inside and out, then I don't care if they belong to the same country club or not b/c I - myself - am pretty sure it had nothing to do with the hire.

At best, it might be deciding factor #7 when the first 6 factors have come up ties, which at that point wouldn't matter to me either since the guys are virtually interchangeable if you have to go that far down the factor list. Thus, the agent factor doesn't concern me, I am supremely uninterested in it.

From my view, this is logical, reasonable, and objective. But, in the spirit of being logical, reasonable, and objective, I guess everyone feels the same about their opinions. Even Lee.

Now, I think we've tackled this thing inside and out by this point, so I no longer feel compelled to try to convince anyone else of my point of view. My apologies if I was a dick.

pup wrote:Instead, we did 1 interview and hired a long time OC, with little to no play calling responsibilities. And still have a guy who has never led an offense to a 20 ppg season as our play caller.

And that - right there - is by far my #1 issue with The Walrus. There was no search, it was rigged from the beginning.

Proof of two things. One - Walrus can do whatever he wants without Randy even sending him a "sure ya dont wanna look at a couple other guys" text message. And two - Holmgren is a stubborn prick that would rather lose doing it his way than explore non Bob LaMonte clients.

End of the day - If Walrus brings in a failure of a HC and then refuses to get rid of him - he is a failure.

Listen, I get Gameface's point about play calling being a little overrated and talent trumps everything. Look at the teams that go deep every year. Outside of the franchise QB thing, they all draft well. Both the Giants and Pats rosters are littered with studs they found outside the 1st round.

One other thing we've seen though, is that idiot coaches don't go to Super Bowls. Not since Barry Switzer took over that loaded Dallas team.

Especially in today's game. Opposing defenders were joking after games that they knew exactly what plays were coming. You need an innovative offensive mind. And on the best teams, that guy isn't even the head coach.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

swerb wrote:Especially in today's game. Opposing defenders were joking after games that they knew exactly what plays were coming. You need an innovative offensive mind. And on the best teams, that guy isn't even the head coach.

I get the angst and the displeasure. I do. I feel it, I watched every week, and people around me felt it as well.

But Gameface is right in the regard that the playcalling is nowhere near as important as the game plan/schematic design. And I think the biggest effect the lockout had last season was limiting Shurmur's ability to get shit done efficiently from day one.

He was over-taxed and over burdened. That's on Holmgren for not mandating he have help.

But I think having an offensive mind in addition to whatever was there actually gameplan and help design the offense will help immensely. If Shurmur is freed up to work matchups as opposed to being over extended designing the offense, the game plan and the play calls I think it's a benefit.

I have a hard time believing if I asked who called plays for all 32 teams that we'd come up with google-less answers here.

IMO this is the shit or get off the pot year for Walrus and his crew. Base offense installed, weeding in/out guys you want in it, OC on board, Shurmur's virgin year in the books.

If you can't identify what they're doing and have faith in it by the end of 2012 then it's a desperate situation once again.

On these (or any) boards, there comes a time when the Tide of - I don't want to say "Stupidity", since almost none of the people that post here are stupid, so I'll use "Paranoia and Disreason" instead - when the Tide of Paranoia and Disreason gets too high, and it's time to take a break from swimming to nullify the risk of drowning in said Paranoia and Disreason.

peeker643 wrote:But Gameface is right in the regard that the playcalling is nowhere near as important as the game plan/schematic design. And I think the biggest effect the lockout had last season was limiting Shurmur's ability to get shit done efficiently from day one.

I disagree with this to a point. I think there are numerous times in each game where play calling is critical to the the situation, and could easily impact end game results. Just one EG: is 2nd & 10 after an in complete 1st down pass. You can set your watch to how GD often a run play is called in that situation (and defenses know this), all in the hopes of getting a semi manageable 3rd down and distance. If you have a scheme and it is good enough to be a pass on first down offense than GD pass the ball on 2nd & 10 as well.

Also inside the 10 & 5 yard lines, play calling is critical just due to simple real estate limitations. I understand if you don't have the personnel, you don't have the personnel. But if you even remotely do you have to make the right play calls down there.

EOD IMO randomizing is lost on many if not most coaches.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I understand where Hiko, peeker and gameface are coming from on the other side of this. I really do. But I also don't think we're coming from a per usual place where the offense doesn't perform well, and we're just guys that are bitching about the "play calling."

There has been much noise (as Swerbs alludes to) from more than just Joe fan. Let's not forget Mike Lombardi telling us that he had a NFL guy ON THE PHONE, and he would describe who was in the game, the formation, and who was in motion - and with only those 3 pieces of info was calling the exact play - down to who rushed or was targeted the ball 85-90% of the time.

And there was more than a little rumbling when Shurmer got the nod. It wasn't only fans that understood he wasn't on anyones radar.

So yeah, maybe it's my problem that I think he's a disaster beyone repair this early in his tenure - but there usually isn't this much doofus info at this point.

We got an owner that falls for the first bullshit interview. We got a GM that has no pressure from above appointing his boys. Said it 1,000 times, there's no checks and balances here. Winning organizations have checks and balances. Holmgren doing what he wants to do, when he wants to do it - no matter what we think of the guy, that's a dangerous place to be. You've got a head coach and coordinators that are all going to be yes men. Not good.

Yes, it's the players that make the lion's share of the difference. Doesn't mean we can eschew the rest of this shit. I'll be glad to be wrong. Perhaps Holmgren hit a home run with all of this. But we've got all eggs in one basket - and I don't like the percentages.

Hikohadon wrote:On these (or any) boards, there comes a time when the Tide of - I don't want to say "Stupidity", since almost none of the people that post here are stupid, so I'll use "Paranoia and Disreason" instead - when the Tide of Paranoia and Disreason gets too high, and it's time to take a break from swimming to nullify the risk of drowning in said Paranoia and Disreason.

My point isn't that he'll be good/great or competent play caller. My point is that he was put in an unwinnable situation last year by a man who should know better and you'll get a much clearer and fairer idea of exactly what Shurmur is now that he's got help.

Basically, dude won't be trying to cram 36 hours into a 24 hour day. Of course there are situations when a play is more critical than the gameplan. That happens every game multiple times. Having an experienced offensive mind should help. If it doesn't then game over for the guy.

swerb wrote:And that - right there - is by far my #1 issue with The Walrus. There was no search, it was rigged from the beginning.Proof of two things. One - Walrus can do whatever he wants......

Of course it was rigged...and yes the Walrus is King. He is getting the band back together on Lerner's dime.

The Walrus is the Blackjack dealer and Lamonte supplies the cards to the "house." Insider trading.....Congress does it every day and its legal, you try it you go bake pies with Martha Stewart in an orange jump suit with black boots ( unless of course you have a foot ailment then you get a "soft" shoe pass).

I for one am with JB. I have been waiting for 47 years. I vaguely remember Dr. Frank Ryan with his grey hair barking out the signals when were were something. We've been eating shit for ten years and it still tastes nasty ( without a chaser). The Walrus never was a Messiah, but I am willing to give him 5 years to get his clown posse in place and allow Heckert to get some players that can actually compete on this roster.

The Walrus is a pompous, arrogant, condescending, chain smoking, fat fuck. He is either going to be right or wrong. I hope and pray he is right. If not tie him to a funeral pyre on a wooden raft ,float him offshore and light him up with flaming arrows.

We have 7 picks in the first 4 rounds. Heckert will hit on at least 3. Hell, I could with a dart board.

and that was with adrian peterson at running back and future hall-of-famer brett favre enjoying his final swan song at qb. i don't see adrian peterson or brett favre coming out of the tunnel in burnt orange, brown and white uniforms anytime soon. not to mention percy harvin or sidney rice.

One of his major clients, Mike Holmgren, is now firmly in command of the Cleveland Browns, so LaMonte and his large client list ranging from assistants to personnel men will help restock the Browns on and off the field.

When Browns owner Randy Lerner gave Holmgren a five-year contract for a reported $50 million, he essentially paid LaMonte to own his team. They might be called the Cleveland Browns on the field, but the Cleveland “LaMontes” might be their real name. No one will gain or maintain employment with the Browns unless they come with the blessing and representation of LaMonte.

I think Mike Lombardi is a putz. And yeah it is old, but that is the point. It was just a few weeks after Holmgren's hire and it presciently predicts absolutely everything that has happened. His marketing of HC candidates also hits paddy to a T.

HoodooMan wrote:One of his major clients, Mike Holmgren, is now firmly in command of the Cleveland Browns, so LaMonte and his large client list ranging from assistants to personnel men will help restock the Browns on and off the field.

When Browns owner Randy Lerner gave Holmgren a five-year contract for a reported $50 million, he essentially paid LaMonte to own his team. They might be called the Cleveland Browns on the field, but the Cleveland “LaMontes” might be their real name. No one will gain or maintain employment with the Browns unless they come with the blessing and representation of LaMonte.

^Overflowing with substance.

So you're admitting I'm correct?

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team